CCPR/C/116/D/2099/2011 appealed that ruling before the Gryazinsky City Court; and that the court rejected the appeal on 12 April 2013. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes that the author claims that there has been a violation of his rights under article 2 of the Covenant, without clarifying the nature of the violation of this provision. It observes that the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, which lay down general obligations for States parties, cannot, in isolation, give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol.3 However, insofar as the author invokes article 2 along with article 7 as the basis for a claim that his allegations of torture had not been adequately investigated, the Committee considers the claim sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 9 of the Covenant, to the effect that his detention was arbitrary. In the absence of any further pertinent information on the file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this particular claim for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant have been violated, as his lawyer, S., did not provide an adequate defence; the author was not given a chance to become acquainted with the content of the criminal charges against him upon completion of the investigations; and the first instance court refused to summon several of the witnesses whose presence he had requested. The Committee considers these general allegations to be inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol as insufficiently substantiated. The Committee considers, however, that the facts as described by the author relating to the circumstances in which a confession was extracted from him raise issues under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 8.7 The Committee declares the remaining claims admissible and proceeds with their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he was beaten and tortured by the police immediately after his arrest on 30 July 2002 and during the following days. The author claims that he was beaten with rubber tubes, repeatedly picked up by his legs and dropped on the floor, and forced to wear a gas mask with a blocked valve, as a result of which he lost consciousness. The Committee also notes that the author presented a copy of a note from the hospital in Gryazi, stating that between 31 July 2002 and 21 August 2002 the author was diagnosed with numerous injuries, including broken ribs and a brain concussion. The author provided detailed information regarding his ill-treatment and claims that the complaints made to that effect were ignored by the prosecution and the courts. 3 6 See, inter alia, communications No. 316/1988, C.E.A. v. Finland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 10 July 1991, para. 6.2; No. 802/1998, Rogerson v. Australia, Views adopted on 3 April 2002; and No. 1213/2003, Sastre Rodríguez et al. v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 28 March 2007, para. 6.6.